​well unfortunately I guess we all just have to accept that we can be one shot from arty at anytime, it's a bad mechanic which is broken but wargaming won't fix the problem we just have to live with it

I was under the impression that some people interpreted that blog post as WG actually loooking into the problem/issue? Do anti-artillery people disagree about what the post actually says?

I don't even know how to respond to this. It's like you think WoT's has anything at all to do with real life combat. It's just numbers are leveraging your advantage to the point where RNG can't kill you. That is all. This game is an arcade shooter, pure and simple. The players play the game to the best of their current abilities. Blaming players makes no sense whatsoever.

I might also add that war isn't designed to be fun, or fair to those involved. Online PvP games are.

So WG develops a game that has historical tanks that fully function as their historical counter part, they also have experimental tanks that were either fully developed but never saw combat or tanks that only existed on blue prints. We have maps that have all kinds or terrain and buildings, there are numerous historically accurate shells, modules, upgrades, and you say this game is a pure arcade shooter!!!!, Your whole argument about the game and arty is seriously misguided and i can now see this is why you misjudge the game in the manner that you do,

Games like WoT are to some degree social experiments on how total strangers when put together in a team of 15, work as a team or will they be 15 individuals. Everything is thrust together in one place, gender, nationality, age, life experience and this game tests these people's gaming skill to the limits, and it shows. The evidence is for all to see in either the ingame chat 'General chat' or the ingame battle chat. The Hall of Shame sections of various WoT fan sites and blogs is also evidence.

The reason I say and will always say the players are a big part of the problem is because there are tons and tons of websites, some official, some not that explain, in detail, the purpose of each tank, their strengths and weaknesses, how best to play them, best use of modules, upgrades and shells, the training path the crew needs to take to get the best out of the tank, how best to work in each of the maps depending on which tank type you use. Even in the forum there are posts by experienced players who give very welcomed advice on how best to play the game but yet still you get 100's of players saying 'arty suks','ban arty','MM suks','ban gold ammo' and so on and so on. These are the ramblings of bad players who refuse to use all the information that's available to them to both understand the game properly and to improve on there gaming skill,

Over the years WG has buffed and nerfed a large array of tanks due to the whines and moans of the playerbase AND the playerbase STILL complain. If these players have the same opinion as you that this is purely an arcade shooter then this game is certainly not for them and they can take their whines and moans elsewhere.

This is pretty much the reaction of myself and the dozen or so different people I have platooned with when we see there is no artillery in the game. .

It's pretty much the first thing we all check when we enter the game, not XVM ratings, not the map, not the game mode, not the types of tanks or tiers.

Is there any artillery? and if so how many? because we all know that they will make the game less fun and change the gameplay.

An artillery free game brings actual elation and joy before we even start playing, expectations for the game jump up just my the removal of this one hated presence.

I have played online multiplayer games for probably 15 years now, and I have never encountered a game play element or mechanic that can annoy me more or ruin the game more, nor one as horrifically broken.

Myself and my toon mates are clearly not alone in thinking this either, that is clear from the amount of people in chat who will also express delight in an arty free game and the huge amount of hate it generates in ever media associated with the game.

So I can only conclude that if WG don't think it is a problem (which I don't think is true) then they clearly don't play their own game.

So WG develops a game that has historical tanks that fully function as their historical counter part, they also have experimental tanks that were either fully developed but never saw combat or tanks that only existed on blue prints. We have maps that have all kinds or terrain and buildings, there are numerous historically accurate shells, modules, upgrades, and you say this game is a pure arcade shooter!!!!

And wowp is realistic flight sim, because there are historical models in it. Stronk logic!

You don't answer and you never have, you just try to deny the existence of a problem despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. You do so by posting unnecessarily long and rambling posts that are boring to read.

I post long post because "arty is broken" posts of yours are worth nothing.

I have never said there isn't problem with arty. I have even suggested several ways to make it better for both sides. That something could be better and more fun still doesn't mean it's broken to the core as you seems to think. Stop presenting your own preferences and wants as universal truths that would cover every player.

Quote

Arty is different - that is not a subjective opinion. It is a fact. Every class is different in some distinct way that that defines it as part of that class of tank. Arty, however, is so different that it is virtually incomparable with the other classes. Even if the classes where comparable, as you seem to claim that they are, it makes no difference to the core issues regarding arty. Even if we can compare the classes in any way, the problems with arty remain due to those differences and the way they are made manifest in the game. Comparison is not a defense.

As you say, every class is different. It's you who have decided that arties "different" is different from other classes "different".

You think it is unfair that arty can shoot you from range where you can do nothing. Are all ranged classes in different games "unfair" because they can harm your melee (or direct fire class in WoT) while you would need to push through his team or surprise him to get to him, but is easy kill after that? For some reason you do not seem to think it unfair that arty only has fraction of hp's of other classes, practically have no armor, move like slugs and have worst gun handling stats in the game.

Quote

Yes, fear of those things makes people camp and ONE of those things can projects its fear across the ENTIRE map, anywhere, any time and opponent is spotted , all match long - from 30 seconds until the end of the game. Can you see the difference? TD's can kemp boosh at base thereby making players weary of crossing that last open stretch of land towards cap, tanks can get dug in thereby making it difficult to advance but each of those classes only has the power to do that over a very very limited portion of the map.

You are totally disregarding level of area denial. Other classes do it for smaller area, but their denial is much stronger than arties. You are also totally disregarding ability of other classes to bypass covers by movement and hunting you down in a way arties can only dream of.

Quote

You have claimed that fear of being hit makes people camp and we all know that arty can hit a player anywhere when they are not in hard cover - therefore, you are saying that arty causes more camping.

Tanks can hit you anywhere. For campers it doesn't matter if it's arty that is looking down on you or big HT/TD guns or even fear of unseen LT/MT lurking somewhere ready to make cheese out of you the moment you leave your cover. Look at the amount of camping in non-arty games. Look at the amount of camping few months after 8.6 when everyone had learned the hard way the power of TD's. Accusing arty for camping is stupid. Arty is one reason to camp and one way to break camp. It's up to you how you decide to use it.

Quote

Arty aid campers in that they can sit in hard cover and spot. They cannot be hit by the attacking team's arty because they are camping (and being rewarded for doing so). However, to dislodge such an enemy takes an attacking push. The attackers in this scenario are now exposed to the camping team's arty. In this way arty fundamentally reinforces camping by actively and without question punishing the attacking player more than it punishes the defensive player.

Active players are supported by arty. You seem to play 1 vs 15 games here. In battles with arty team that takes control of map and can do even half decent work on scouting will win. Tanks that camp in fear of arty will give arty safe area to get their angles right to bypass their cover. They give arty known positions to preaim. Most of all they give arty time to do their work.

If you happen to be in slow tank, like T95 or Maus and get to open map it will be hard for you. In such games your work is not same as in city maps or no arty battles. Same as LT/MT job changes a lot depending on map and lineups of teams. Sometimes there is not much you can do. It is true for every tank no matter arty or no. Deal with it.

Quote

We agree on this point. However, they are able to induce their own skill in these attacking instances and utilise it to achieve victory over a lower skilled opponent. Arty does not allow itself to be counterable with skilled play. It is entirely removed from any skill-reward dynamic for the vast portion of play time. They get to test their skill (what little is required to play arty effectively) without any chance of them being outskilled and defeated. If their 'skill' (lol) is found lacking they simply try again, and again, and again.

For some reason better players are much harder targets than bad players. Skill does matter. For some reason better players do much better in their arties than bad players. Skill does matter.

As I wrote in my earlier post, but it seems you missed it, arty can be outplayed indirectly by not being a target, by being a hard target or by blinding arty killing whatever eyes arty had. Arty can be outplayed and killed in direct fire.

You are just refusing to acknowledge effect of skill and then complaining skill doesn't matter.

Quote

This is a stupid argument.

Remembering about the ability to draw upon skill in direct engagements - how do I try to focus a superunicum? The answer is, that I expose myself to his counter-skill and try to defeat him. He has the opportunity, and perhaps the advantage over me, in terms of skill - which is exactly how a skill-based shooter should be. The more skilled the player the greater chances of success.

Clearly arty does not allow for the more skilled player to respond for the vast portion of the game time. Until the game has already been won or lost, in matter of fact.

Clearly more skilled players seems to be able to win battles more. So they do respond before battle is already lost or won. Sometimes they can get to arties and sometimes they work indirect way (avoid enemy arty, get enemies to own arty fire etc.). Arty doesn't prevent them from applying their skill.

When enemy has good armor, you need to play certain way to negate his armor. You use your skill.

When enemy has good camo, you need to play certain way to negate his camo advantage. You use your skill.

When enemy has more hp, you need to play certain way to negate his hp advantage. You use your skill.

When enemy can shoot you from afar, you need to play certain way to negate his advantage. You use your skill.

Of course this becomes impossible to you if you consider that there's nothing you can do against arty. You use your advantage: team mates, speed, accuracy, armor, hp, camo, what ever you have, and enemy uses what ever advantages he has: team mates, indirect fire, splash. You are still pitting your (and your teams) skill against enemy teams skill - which is exactly how a skill-based team shooter should be.

Quote

The maps are created to have various vantage points - these points must be won if you are to succeed consistently. Those places aren't 'known locations' for no reason, they are 'known locations' because they are extremely tactically important.

If you sit in Himmelsdorf death street on paper armored tank when there's hulldown armor monster against you, then that perhaps wasn't the right place to be. There are important places, but you need to think what you are facing when deciding if it's wise to go there. You can't play game same way no matter what you are facing. Arty makes some places more dangerous but makes other places more feasible.

Quote

'roaming' - That doesn't mean anything besides playing in the second line and going somewhere stupid. Regardless, even where I to go top an 'unknown' location arty would take less than 20 seconds to re-aim on my location. Now my location is 'known'.

Unless you're seriously suggesting that no-one should go to any important strategic location and we all just drive around randomly, your argument is utterly vacuous.

For arty to aim at you, even in is field of fire, it will take 2-5 seconds to change aim at your position and then 1-3 seconds for shell to fly. Enough to get back to safety. That is if you were just 10-20m away from his aim point. When you keep peeking from behind corner or rock he knows exactly where you will be and shell will be there fast.

For example LT/MT or even fast HT/TD is very hard target for arty on Sand River dunes if they know what they are doing. Campers on base ridges are easy targets as they could be even blind fired because their position is easy to know.

Quote

As I have said, and you have ignored, all of those players have to directly expose themselves to my skill in return. They may beat me in any of the ways that you describe, but in doing so they are using their tank better than I am using mine and are open to me doing the same to them, they are open to being defeated by me if they make their move poorly or if I play much better than them.

Try to get that "direct" out of your head. You are complaining that indirect class is not fighting you directly. Go figure.

You do not like indirect aspect of this game. It does not mean it's broken or game breaking. For me indirect part has been important part of WoT and the thing that separates it from basic shooters.

If arty uses his indirect ability against you, isn't he using his tank better than you are using yours? If he knows his job, he will not directly confront you, because he is capable of indirect battle and is very weak in direct battle. It's your job to negate his ability and play to your tanks advantages. Isn't this just perfect example of "skill" of using his tank correctly? Of course you can go complain that you need to fight his team first, but what you expected. This is team game, and it's part of teams skill to allow it's indirect weapons to work for their team.

Quote

Arty is not open to this, he just reloads and tries again. No amount of skillful play allows me to defeat him when he 'engages' me.

He is somewhere there on the map. Perhaps you should search for him and kill him, or let your team do it. I have seen plenty of dead arties, even at the opening stage of battles. For some reason some players do find some amount of skill to defeat those arties. Some can even do in a way that arties can't engage them back. Considering your stats I do find it odd if you are not capable of this.

This is not 1 vs 1 direct fire game. This is team game with indirect component. If you have problem with either of those, it doesn't mean game is broken.

Quote

Arty requires no skill whatsoever to play adequately.

No tank in this game needs no skill to play adequately. HT's have armor and hp so they can just roll forwards mindlessly and still do something. TD's have gun and camo to sit in bush near their base and get few shots of and still do something.

To do well in arty is another matter and needs skill. Otherwise every player would have similar stats on their arties.

Quote

I don't care who plays arty. It is a broken mechanic that needs to be 'solved', that is all I care about.

That you do not like arty doesn't make it broken.

That you think skill doesn't matter for arty or arty target doesn't make it broken.

That arty can fight indirectly doesn't make it broken.

That arty is part of team and sometime it's hard to get through enemy team doesn't make it broken.

This game is not made specially for you. Your perfect game might not have arty in it, but it doesn't mean that arty and arty mechanism itself would be broken.

TL : DR

That something could be improved doesn't mean it's broken.

Your own likes and preferences doesn't dictate what is broken for others.

You think it is unfair that arty can shoot you from range where you can do nothing. Are all ranged classes in different games "unfair" because they can harm your melee (or direct fire class in WoT) while you would need to push through his team or surprise him to get to him, but is easy kill after that? For some reason you do not seem to think it unfair that arty only has fraction of hp's of other classes, practically have no armor, move like slugs and have worst gun handling stats in the game.

Sorry but this really caught my attention are you seriously saying artillery in this game is same as some ranged class ie in wow ? You do realize that when i go in pvp against ranged class in said game i can do lot more than just sit behind a rock and hope i survive until 10 mins of the game where i can finally go deal with them. Not to even mention the said ranged classes generally don't do 100-0 your health in matter of seconds (and if they do they are generally nerfed) not to even mention they generally don't shoot you from the other side of the map where they are immune to counter attacks / CC / Gap closers and million other ways i could think of dealing with them.

You cannot relate WoT to WoWP, they are two totally different games, therefore trying to ridicule my post with your 'stronk logic' falls flat on it's face.

Just applied your "logic" to another wg game, simply by switching "tanks" with "planes". Are you saying now that it's gameplay mechanics that decides if something is arcade shooter or not? What a great way to demolish your own argument.

I truly adore arti for many reason but mainly because I can haze overpower rus med tanks playing hull down moving 1-2 meters back and forth tapping the fire button every 6 secs with their permanent autoloader. It brings me so much pleasure to see rus tanks getting blown up to pieces by arti when I am near them with my Leo 1 moving all the time, trying to pay attention to what happens around me and not just let WG magical armor do that for me

I've played nearly 20k battles now and i REALLY DON'T SEE ARTY A PROBLEM FROM EITHER END.

I guarantee i have been hit 10 times more from direct fire than indirect fire. Of those miniscule amount of hits; most are an annoyance and rarely (probably 30 times??) have i been one shotted. Most do a similar amount of damage to a +1 heavy and take an age to reload. Just don't present yourself again.

About 5k games ago i started to play Arty and find it frustrating. Some shots make unbelievable small amounts of damage (hi bert) whilst my only line (Brit) average about 400 at tier 8. Thats of all my hits only. I probably miss2/3 to 3/4HIT 40% of FULLY AIMED shots.

My issue with artillery is that any [edited]can play it.

It doesn't matter if they are a purple unicum with 3400 WN8 or a tomato so rotten they are incapable of doing anything else. Regardless of who it is or what they do, they are all equally as devastating to a player who is actually trying to play the game, and not camping and being "Arty safe" all the time.

Believe it or not, there was a time where artillery took ALLOT of skill to play, but WG messed that up when they completely ruined the only key balancing factor it had and did not even realise it, leading to the kind of games where 2/3rds of the team played artillery and it became disgustingly broken and overpowered beyond belief.

Are you for real!!!, WoT a land based game and WoWP in the air game and you ask how they differ!!!. Apart from the historical link between the two, there are HUGE differences, like name a plane than can camp in the air and can fire over the whole range of the map without being detected? That is why you cannot compare the two in the context of this thread.

Are you for real!!!, WoT a land based game and WoWP in the air game and you ask how they differ!!!. Apart from the historical link between the two, there are HUGE differences, like name a plane than can camp in the air and can fire over the whole range of the map without being detected? That is why you cannot compare the two in the context of this thread.